beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures clothes and engages in wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a personal entrepreneur that operates the manufacturing and wholesale business of clothing in the trade name of C.
B. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract and D’s pre-quality test (1) with the content that the Plaintiff would be supplied to the Defendant in accordance with the schedule of the Home shopping name broadcasting of KRW 37,000 per set up a product supply contract with the content that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 15,000 (the male Type 2 7,000 sets and female class 3 8,000 sets; hereinafter “instant clothing”) for the E golf purpose through D’s D broadcasts operated by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).
(2) Prior to running broadcasting, the Defendant manufactured and provided the instant clothing prototypes to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and D proceeded with the quality test of the said prototype, and the evaluation was made to the extent that the said prototype satisfies the quality to be able to be sold through home shopping, and passed the test.
C. On November 14, 2015, the Plaintiff’s revocation and reduction of home shopping broadcasts decided to proceed with the Home shopping name broadcasting of the instant clothing, but the said broadcasts were revoked due to the lack of sufficient quantity for the broadcast by the time prior to the said broadcasting date, and the said broadcasts were conducted for 20 minutes less than the scheduled time.
After the above broadcast, the delivery did not properly take place and accordingly delayed delivery to the buyers, D imposed the panel fee for delay in delivery on the Plaintiff, while it deprived the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right-based delivery company qualification company (the Plaintiff’s store when the customer orders the products through home shopping).
(1) On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a letter of non-performance and a written confirmation to the Defendant.